Tapping on the Overton Window

But if loosening border restrictions really is the key to a much richer world, what does anyone do about it? I asked John Lee, a regular contributor to the Open Borders site, what someone with unlimited money should do if they want to convince people to support open borders. Mark Zuckerberg, for example.

“The four words, ‘I favor open borders,’” Lee told me. “That would be the biggest thing he can do. You really need to de-radicalize the idea.” —If People Could Immigrate Anywhere, Would Poverty Be Eliminated?

I enjoyed reading this article, and I especially loved this answer. Lee’s suggestion doesn’t require unlimited money; you can implement it too. By the way, I favor open borders.

"

“We have told our families in Iran that we are Christian now, and they have disowned us. So we don’t have a family to return to. Our blood is now halal; it is holy for Muslims to kill us,” Shafadi said.

A Swedish immigration official tried to comfort her by saying they would probably be thrown into an Iranian prison, but not killed.

Homeira, another Iranian Christian facing deportation, told CBN News she no longer officially exists in Sweden.

“My asylum request was denied and I was ordered to leave the country. I don’t have any identity. I can’t even use medical services. I can’t work,” she said.

She’s now in hiding. She said when she tried to testify about her Christian faith to immigration officials, they thought she was lying.

“Officials do not seem to understand why a Muslim would become a Christian. They asked me, ‘Why didn’t you become a Jew?’” Homeira said.

Jabbari said an immigration official told him that when he is deported to Iran, all he needs to do to keep from being arrested is tell everyone he’s a Muslim, not a Christian, and he’ll be fine.

To that Jabbari replied, “After I’m baptized? I’m a Christian. You cannot say these things to me.”

“There’s a lot of bias regarding Christian converts because the standard argument is, ‘Well, nobody converts to Christianity out of true belief. Why would anyone do anything of the sort?’” Donner said.

"

— “Sweden Denies Asylum to Christians Facing Persecution

"Just because more workers should be allowed in does not mean family immigration should be reduced by an equal amount. Immigration isn’t a budget that needs to be balanced. Worker immigration at all skill levels is severely restricted and should be loosened, but it shouldn’t be done at the expense of the family immigration system, which provides entry for some lower-skilled immigrant workers. Because family members are so often workers, decreasing family immigration would also unintentionally decrease worker immigration."

— Alex Nowrasteh “Many Family-Sponsored Immigrants Are Workers Too

Tags: immigration

"

More importantly, Billy has always worried that a sharp shift in politics could change laws. And the expiration date on his green card allows an administration to decide they will no longer renew these documents. As we know, immigration is a controversial and heated issue, and sentiments about the topic often sway directly in relationship with economics and media. Knowing that you’ll always have to renew leaves space for some doubt, especially when you are from a Central American country.

Voting

This is truly the main difference between an LPR and a citizen: the right to vote. Citizens (including myself) often take this prividlege for granted. But Billy has been disappointed to have to stand by and watch campaign ads smear immigrants, call them names, and spread fear without the opportunity and recourse of being able to vote in the elections. So many immigrants do not even have voting as an option that Billy feels compelled to take the next step to share his voice.

"

— Sarah Quezada sharing some reasons her husband is pursuing citizenship in “I Pledge Allegiance

"

It is abundantly clear to me that the Holy Spirit has been guiding the evolution of thought among American Christians regarding immigration issue. It is, as Scripture tells us, “not by might, nor by power, but by [God’s] Spirit” that transformation occurs (Zechariah 4:6). Scripture tells us that God loves, provides for, and establishes justice for immigrants (Deuteronomy 10:17-19, Psalm 146:9): I simply have been privileged to be an up-close witness to the work of God’s Spirit.

Recognizing God’s role in this process is actually a huge relief. We are called to join God in seeking justice, and we are to be good stewards of our time, working diligently. We are, as the prophet Isaiah puts it, to “spend” ourselves (Isaiah 58:19) on behalf of those who are vulnerable, but that same passage tells us that we will find joy in the Lord only if we “keep [our] feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as [we] please on [God’s] holy day” (Isaiah 58:13). We can rest—at least one day out of seven—because God is always at work (John 5:17). As the title of a new book that I’m eager to read puts it, “the world is not ours to save.” Like John the Baptist (John 3:30), we must constantly seek to become less, pointing others to the true Savior of the world.

"

— Matthew Soerens in “Keeping the Sabbath

"In modern America we believe racism to be the property of the uniquely villainous and morally deformed, the ideology of trolls, gorgons and orcs. We believe this even when we are actually being racist."

— Ta-Nehisi Coates in “The Good, Racist People

Five Reasons I Prefer an Iterative Approach to Immigration Reform

It seems that most of the immigration reform advocates I follow prefer a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. I see some merit in this approach and think that the approach is less important than the substance of legislation, but I would rather see an iterative approach to immigration reform. Here are five reasons:

  • “Comprehensive” sets up a false expectation that this is the last time we will make changes to the immigration system. It won’t be. Such a false expectation makes it harder to pass reform now (because it has to include everything everyone wants) and later (when people say they passed reform in the past and it didn’t work… like some are saying about 1986).

  • An iterative approach lets some meaningful changes get passed quickly. I think the DREAM Act and some sort of STEM visa reform (maybe an increase in visas, maybe removing the per-country cap) can make it through without too big a fight. It is tempting to let such popular measures help push through less popular legislation, but some victories could also help maintain energy to make reform happen. While we’re waiting to work out a million details, DACA recipients in Arizona can’t get driver’s licenses.

  • It gives the GOP a “compromise”. I think the GOP should be trying to beat the Democrats on how friendly it can be toward immigrants (on principle, one would expect the GOP to prefer deregulation and letting the market rather than the government make decisions like how many people are welcome here), but since they seem set on making the Democrats “compromise”, letting them have their preferred piecemeal approach instead of a single large bill seems like a better compromise than legalization without a path to citizenship.

  • An iterative approach is less susceptible to poison pills. While it is ridiculous to say that insisting on a path to citizenship indicates a lack of seriousness about reform, there are issues that could (whether intentionally or unintentionally) seriously impede progress (broadening who qualifies as a “spouse” for example). Rather than accusations of who is at fault when negotiations come to a stand-still, I would prefer the more resilient process of passing smaller bills. Even though there is a possibility to pass more with a comprehensive bill, comprehensive reform passing isn’t guaranteed, and I prefer the odds of passing some things in an iterative approach to getting nothing after a few poison pills kill a comprehensive bill.

  • Future-flow won’t be solved in one bill. If we don’t fix future-flow, the urgent issues (like how to get workers in specific fields that would be helped by increased levels of immigration (agriculture, STEM, etc.) or how to treat the millions of people who are here without authorization) will be urgent again in a decade. Unfortunately there are those who treat visa levels as a zero-sum game, insisting that new visas be “offset”, and an iterative approach—one that increases popular visas (U visas, something for agriculture, advanced STEM visas, better options for entrepreneurs), without offsetting them, in distinct bills—seems better for moving the Overton window to reflect the toxic and radical nature of requiring offsets. I would like to see visa increases now, but I also want to change the trajectory of our immigration system to allow increases to the point that the market, rather than numeric limits, sets immigration rates in the future.

And the Problem is?

A top objective for Goodlatte is to expand a guest-worker program for immigrant-labor-dependent U.S. agriculture, should millions already here illegally be allowed to stay.

“You’re going to have to have a program that assures those farms and those processing plants that there will be workers,” he says. “Because if you give them legal status, they can work anywhere in the United States — they’re not going to necessarily work at the hardest, toughest, dirtiest jobs.” —Meet The Virginian Shaping The House GOP’s Immigration Plan

And the problem with workers and non-agricultural employers having more options is?

Tags: immigration

Risk, Reward, and Reducing Clutter

Beyond our normal seasonal decluttering, in the last few months, Michael and I have been doing a bit of extra purging.

Some people have expressed concern—mostly that we might get rid of something now that we’ll want later. But I trust that God will supply our every need, even if I don’t use the space I have now to keep things I might want in a decade.

I don’t think lack of a coffee table will ever be my biggest risk. Although Michael and I are not among the wealthiest Americans, our lives have been characterized by abundance. I think we need to be more wary of warnings like: > Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you. (James 5:1-6 ESV)

Rotted, moth-eaten, corroded… those kinds of damage often come from a lack of use. Food that goes bad before it is eaten, fabric that attracts silverfish, medicine that expires before we’ve used half the bottle, batteries corroding in gadgets that sit around gathering dust… riches whose lack of use testifies against us.

We see a certain level of risk in our stuff: letting it be a determining factor in decisions (like whether to take advantage of opportunities, where we go next, how we use our space and time now), letting our affection for things compete with love for God and people, letting our space become so crowded we can’t enjoy the things we have, letting maintenance of our stuff suck up our time, letting our stuff own us.

But it isn’t just the risk that has motivated us to purge. A few weeks ago, we saw the reward of striving for a simpler life as my sister-in-law moved in with us. This is explicitly the kind of opportunity we’ve been trying to allow when we talk about prioritizing people over possessions.

I’m thrilled that we have this opportunity to build better relationship with Michael’s sister (and I trust, given her acceptance the offer, that she considers the arrangement beneficial as well).

That isn’t to say that knowing there is risk from holding stuff tightly and reward available for getting rid of stuff made the process automatic. I still have difficulty facing my irrational urge to keep paper, but keeping in mind why I want to declutter does offer some motivation to ask whether a ream of wide-ruled paper is better sitting in a drawer or sitting on a shelf the thrift store where it might get picked up by someone who might actually write on it.

“I Was a Stranger” Day 1: Genesis 1:27-28

Today, across the country, many are beginning the “I Was a Stranger” challenge—40 days of prayer and reading a short passage of Scripture regarding immigration—with Genesis 1:27-28:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:27-28 ESV)

I think this is a great place to begin. When talking about immigration, we’re talking about people, and before talking about laws, customs, nationalities, race, the economy, national sovereignty, or other issues, we must recognize that these are people created by God, in His image. We should never forget that.

But the designers of the challenge didn’t stop at the end of 27, they included verse 28, in which God commands His image bearers to multiply and fill the earth. This verse is relevant because many of the arguments for limiting immigration are arguments against more people—multiplication—generally: labor competition, limited natural resources, pollution, urban sprawl.

This verse is relevant for a second reason: filling the earth requires migration. If everyone spent their lives where they were born, we’d all be living in Mesopotamia. Migration is part of God’s intentions for humanity.

I don’t know that I’ll blog every day of the “I Was a Stranger” challenge, but would you consider joining me in praying and reading the Bible.